Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): the role and perspective of nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To study the perspectives of nurses on (i) the process of decision-making regarding the placement of feeding gastrostomies, (ii) their role in the process, (iii) the impact this participation has on them personally and (iv) gastrostomy placement in general. BACKGROUND: The decision to commit patients to long-term feeding using a gastrostomy tube can be very difficult, particularly when the anticipated benefits are uncertain. Strategies to improve such decision-making are required. Nurses are in an excellent position to provide valuable insights regarding this decision-making and their increased participation in this process might substantially improve it. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, exploratory design using in-depth semi-structured interviews and a self-administered questionnaire. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews with 17 nurses experienced in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy decision-making were undertaken and analysed. RESULTS: Individuals making decisions regarding feeding gastrostomy placement were observed to be insufficiently informed regarding the device and the ramifications of its placement. Nurses were perceived to play an important, although underused, role in decisions to commit patients to long-term feeding. Participation in the making of these decisions may be stressful to nurses, particularly when the only result anticipated is the sustaining of a life of poor quality. Sixteen nurses reported that they would not want to have a gastrostomy for themselves if they were unable to maintain some quality of life. Strategies that could improve decision-making were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making could be improved by providing better information to decision makers. A team-orientated approach and more active dialogue with regard to care planning among health professionals, especially between doctors and nurses is needed. Effective decisions regarding feeding gastrostomy placement require adequate resources, especially sufficient time for caregivers to communicate effectively with those who must make these decisions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The role of nurses in decision-making regarding commitments to long-term feeding using gastrostomy tubes could be effectively augmented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".